Robert Peston job ad - whites need not apply
Discussion
I don't suppose the placing of a particular ad in a particular outlet has anything at all to do with Peston seeking to gain publicity for his efforts in his career advancement? Or am I just predictably sceptical? There's nothing like stirring up a hornets nest to create futile arguments that you can aloofly stand back from. He is supposed to be a journalist, after all.
plenty said:
Lance Catamaran said:
plenty said:
princealbert23 said:
Why do you imagine only white and wealthy people are posting here? You haven't got a clue as to the circumstances of the posters who disagree with the advert.
The reactions in question are typical of people who do not acknowledge white privilege, who typically comprise conservative white people.Anyway, could anyone tell me where I can cash in my white privilege? Is there a number I need to ring to activate it or something? Reason I ask is that I'm looking for a new job and could do with getting this unfair advantage. I've never had someone offer me a job, discount or preferential treatment just based on my skin colour and I'm a bit annoyed I've been missing out.
princealbert23 said:
Typical? You are making a huge amount of assumptions about people you know nothing about.
I don't need to make assumptions - just read the comments.A. White
B. Male
C. Wealthy
The issue I have with the term ‘white privelege’ is that it’s a generalisation that is too broad and fails to acknowledge that us lucky white folks don’t all enjoy the same luxury lifestyle.
On average, white people are more likely to be wealthier than their ethnic counterparts, and have more opportunities afforded to them. That is true, but it’s a lazy average. When my grandad is in the same room as his great grandson the average age is 42.5 but that tells you f
k all useful.
It dismisses the vast swathes of white people living in poverty. Going through the same struggles of getting a job, paying the bills etc. To them I imagine the phrase ‘white privelege’ is probably quite annoying. But you know, they’re white, so they have it easy.
On average, white people are more likely to be wealthier than their ethnic counterparts, and have more opportunities afforded to them. That is true, but it’s a lazy average. When my grandad is in the same room as his great grandson the average age is 42.5 but that tells you f
k all useful.It dismisses the vast swathes of white people living in poverty. Going through the same struggles of getting a job, paying the bills etc. To them I imagine the phrase ‘white privelege’ is probably quite annoying. But you know, they’re white, so they have it easy.
BlackLabel said:
How exactly is this legal? I thought that if there was any exemption from discrimination laws it had to be clearly stated as such.Ah, but you have to apply like my Sis in Law did at BBC Norn.
So for this app, yes you apply as yourself, say a "pasty Barnsley-born non skin identifying converting to higher pixels darkener" and they have to consider you application.
Well they will respond to it anyway, I'm not sure if the very polite fk off you pisstaker was in the BBCs usual recruitment remit on Linked In or if there is an intermediary thrashing out all this piss takers for the fakers news>
So for this app, yes you apply as yourself, say a "pasty Barnsley-born non skin identifying converting to higher pixels darkener" and they have to consider you application.
Well they will respond to it anyway, I'm not sure if the very polite f
k off you pisstaker was in the BBCs usual recruitment remit on Linked In or if there is an intermediary thrashing out all this piss takers for the fakers news>The BBC has stated its aim by 2017 was to have 14% of its workforce from the BAME community, it wont quite get there but wont be far off.
The BAME population of the UK is about 10 /11%.
If you look at the working population it will be slightly less, more children cultural differences to woman's role etc
Why would they want to massively over represent a minority group, getting to the 10/11% would be seen as sufficient, and reflective of society ?
Their aim was not to employ the best people the 14% was a specific target hence the above job advert.
I though we were working towards no group being over represented, otherwise the 99% white boardroom wouldn't be an issue.
foxbody-87 said:
The issue I have with the term ‘white privelege’ is that it’s a generalisation that is too broad and fails to acknowledge that us lucky white folks don’t all enjoy the same luxury lifestyle.
On average, white people are more likely to be wealthier than their ethnic counterparts, and have more opportunities afforded to them. That is true, but it’s a lazy average. When my grandad is in the same room as his great grandson the average age is 42.5 but that tells you fk all useful.
It dismisses the vast swathes of white people living in poverty. Going through the same struggles of getting a job, paying the bills etc. To them I imagine the phrase ‘white privelege’ is probably quite annoying. But you know, they’re white, so they have it easy.
That's not what the phrase 'white privilege' means. It does not mean that all white people have it easy and get a life of easy luxury handed to them on a plate. It means that in our society white people all receive some sort of social advantage by sheer dint of being white - that, everything else being equal, a white person will be discriminated against less than (say) a black person. On average, white people are more likely to be wealthier than their ethnic counterparts, and have more opportunities afforded to them. That is true, but it’s a lazy average. When my grandad is in the same room as his great grandson the average age is 42.5 but that tells you f
k all useful.It dismisses the vast swathes of white people living in poverty. Going through the same struggles of getting a job, paying the bills etc. To them I imagine the phrase ‘white privelege’ is probably quite annoying. But you know, they’re white, so they have it easy.
There are other forms of privilege - privelege based on sex, on gender, on class, on sexual orientation, on educational background, on speech accent, on your religous identity (if any). They all push and pull at how easy (or not) it is for you to go through life on your own individual actions. The theory is called intersectionality, if you want to look it up any further.
It means that, say, a white person growing up on a Scottish sink estate to an unemployed single mother and attending a terrible comprehensive school, will have a tougher time progressing through life, and be subject to more discrimination (overt, subtle, systemic, institutional, whatever) than a black person born in a stable Home Counties home to a pair of professional parents who goes to a top-ranking private school. They may well still be on the receiving end of racism on account of their skin colour, but they still have fewer obstacles in their way than the white kid, whose only 'privilege' is not to be the subject of racial discrimination.
Of course many of us on this forum (myself included) are white, middle-class, heterosexual, cisgender, healthy, privately-educated men. Our social privileges stack and stack. We have it easy on a level that is hard to really appreciate, even if you know it in theory. We have been playing life on 'easy mode' from the moment we started. That's why 'equality of opportunity' does not mean a simple level playing field, because I have already been offered opportunities, help and resources by society that are simply closed off to large swathes of the population. That's why having a few channels which, for once, exclude white people, is no bad thing. It's not harming the prospects of the white people but it could be an incalcuable benefit to the people it's aimed at. No one would ever say that it's an ideal solution, and of course we should work towards a society where positive discrimination is not needed. But all the signs are that we won't get there when the society we have at the moment is subtly (and largely unbiddenly) keeping the less privileged of us down.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Thursday 23 November 14:06
Rovinghawk said:
It certainly harms their prospect of getting this internship.
But it's like complaining that being wealthy excludes your kids getting a scholarship, or that you can't apply for tax credits and housing support. The internship is aimed at a specific and disadvantaged set of people who (as studies have shown time and time again) get an unfair deal when applying for jobs on a true 'level playing field'. The white kids can keep applying for jobs in the normal channels where they already have a discreet advantage. 2xChevrons said:
But it's like complaining that being wealthy excludes your kids getting a scholarship, or that you can't apply for tax credits and housing support. The internship is aimed at a specific and disadvantaged set of people who (as studies have shown time and time again) get an unfair deal when applying for jobs on a true 'level playing field'. The white kids can keep applying for jobs in the normal channels where they already have a discreet advantage.
What if there were tax credits and housing support specifically aimed at people earning over £100,000 a year, that would remove the unfair deal that these people feel they get.If BBC employees are approx. 14% BAME from a population of approx. 11%, they are not in anyway getting an unfair deal from the BBC.
The problem with the concept of White Privilege is that it is used an explanation / excuse for some of the failings in some ethnic groups.
Would my white privilege help me in say Zimbabwe or South Africa ?
del mar said:
If BBC employees are approx. 14% BAME from a population of approx. 11%, they are not in anyway getting an unfair deal from the BBC.
And what of the proportions in on-screen roles? What about production/writing roles? Or managerial/leadership positions? BAME people are still underepresented in these areas, which is the aim of schemes like the Peston internship - to provide a path into these areas for people from minority groups. It's no good 'overrepresenting' BAME people in the organisation if they're all cleaners, runners, receptionists, technicians etc. Ideally you'd want the demographics of every job role to reflect the national demographics. Schemes with the same aim exist for people from disadvantaged economic or educational backgrounds too. del mar said:
The problem with the concept of White Privilege is that it is used an explanation / excuse for some of the failings in some ethnic groups.
Only by people applying the concept incorrectly (of which there are a good number). But the concept itself is sound, I think. del mar said:
Would my white privilege help me in say Zimbabwe or South Africa ?
Probably not, because these things are not immutable. They are products of the society you are part of. A different society will produce different privileges and treat them in different ways. 2xChevrons said:
Rovinghawk said:
It certainly harms their prospect of getting this internship.
But it's like complaining that being wealthy excludes your kids getting a scholarship2xChevrons said:
The internship is aimed at a specific and disadvantaged set of people
The internship specifically excludes certain people due to ethnicity. This is illegal. In order it to have exclusion under the law the job should state why it is exempt; it doesn't.2xChevrons said:
an unfair deal when applying for jobs on a true 'level playing field'.
By unfair deal I take it you mean discrimination on grounds of ethnicity? Are you saying you disagree with such discrimination but applaud it here? Isn't that hypocritical?2xChevrons said:
The white kids can keep applying for jobs in the normal channels where they already have a discreet advantage.
Funny that- the jobs I've had in the past didn't exhibit such an advantage. There's 2 black guys & a black girl doing basically the same work as me and we all seem to get about the same share of the contracts. They don't even get segregated at the Xmas party, would you believe?2xChevrons said:
There are other forms of privilege - privelege based on sex, on gender, on class, on sexual orientation, on educational background, on speech accent, on your religous identity (if any). They all push and pull at how easy (or not) it is for you to go through life on your own individual actions. The theory is called intersectionality, if you want to look it up any further.
The big problem for me with intersectionality (and the inevitable identity politics it fosters) is that it separates people into groups and assigns a 'privilege' to each.It labels people with an 'identity' that they then carry around - when what we should be doing is treating everyone equally regardless of sex, race etc.
It encourages identities to try and 'out victim' one another.
It allows 'under privileged' groups to apportion all their failures to their identity and discourages activity that could enrich those people.
It fosters resentment in so called 'privileged' groups.
In short it excuses failure and promotes division, when what we should be doing is providing opportunity and promoting effort without favour.
It's a great tool for destroying social cohesion but it salves the consciences for wealthy middle-class liberals who can feel like they 'stand for something' without making any real sacrifices.
There has to be a better way.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff